I am the kind of Old
Landmarker who believes in a truly local church and only in the local
church. I believe that to be truly local, a church must assemble in one
place. Acts 2:1 . . . they were all with one accord in one
place. 1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place
. . .1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together
into one place . . .

I have set forth three
witnesses (plus witnesses quoted by my witnesses) that show that this concept of
the true New Testament type of ecclesia is a foundational principle of Old
Landmarkism. That principle is clearly stated by my first witness. “The
ecclesia of the New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one
place.”

WITNESS 1: James Robinson Graves

“The ecclesia of
the New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one place.”

WITNESS 2: Elton Wilson

“How local is the local
church? IT IS LOCAL ENOUGH TO ASSEMBLE. How local is the local church? IT IS
LOCAL ENOUGH TO OBSERVE THE LORD'S SUPPER.”

WITNESS 3: H. Boyce Taylor

“Our first reason for
contending that the word ekklesia never means any thing but an organized and an
assembling church is that the Lord Jesus, who is the author of the Book of
Revelation, uses the word ekklesia 20 times in Revelation and every time He uses
it, He refers to a local organized and assembling church.”

And now I call my fourth witness.

WITNESS 4: Eld. Milburn Cockrell

“In
order to have a church, baptized saints must come together in one place at the
same time.” “Twenty times the word church is used in the singular number,
and it points to a church which meets in a certain place.”

“If I can give a word a
new meaning so as to fit my creed when the common meaning makes good sense, then
I can change the entire Bible to suit my fancy and the next person can do the
same!”

“Those who do not
gather with the congregation are not a part of it. Having your name on a church
roll does not make you a church member! You must assemble with the congregation
to truly be a part of it in the New Testament sense.”

Let me quote extensively from the
writings of this witness. In his book in which he searches for the universal
church he writes,

Since the term "the
universal, invisible church" is no where found in the New Testament, I must
say that we do not have much to go on in our search. But in order to make sure
the word church never has any meaning other than a local church, we must examine
every passage in the New Testament on this important subject.

In order to
discover the primary and literal meaning of the Greek word ekklhsialet us look carefully at its non-Christian usage in Acts 19. "For
the assembly (ekklhsia)
was confused" (Acts 19:32).
Acts 19:39 says: "It shall be determined in a lawful assembly" (ekklhsia).
Acts 19:41 declares: "He dismissed
the assembly" (ekklhsia).
Hence we see the competent scholars of the
King James Version believed that the literal meaning of ekklhsia
was "assembly." They did not translate it "the called out."

Therefore, the plural
tolerates nothing but the local idea.

Those
who do not gather with the congregation are not a part of it. Having
your name on a church roll does not make you a church member! You must
assemble with the congregation to truly be a part of it in the New
Testament sense.
—Eld Milburn Cockrell—

Twenty times the word
church is used in the singular number, and it points to a church which meets in
a certain place. These passages are as follows:

"The church which
was at Jerusalem" (Acts
8:1).

"The church which
was in Jerusalem" (Acts
11:22).

"The church that was
in Antioch" (Acts 13:1).

"The church at
Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1).

"The church that is
in their house" (Rom. 16:5).

"The church of God
which is at Corinth" (I Cor.
1:2).

"The church which is
in his house" (Col. 4:15).

"The church of the
Laodiceans" (Col. 4:16).

"The church of the
Thessalonians" (I Thess.
1:1).

"The church of the
Thessalonians" (II Thess.
1:1).

"The church in thy
house" (Phile. 2).

"The church of
Ephesus" (Rev. 2:1).

"The church in
Smyrna" (Rev. 2:8).

"The church at
Pergamos" (Rev. 2:12).

"The church in
Thyatira" (Rev. 2:18).

"The church in
Sardis" (Rev. 3:1).

"The church in
Philadelphia" (Rev. 3:7).

"The church of the
Laodiceans" (Rev.3:14).

These verses most
certainly refer to a local church, an assembly of people who meet in a given
locality, a body of baptized believers. There is no such thing as a universal,
invisible church which meets in a certain place. [Ed.
Note: It should also be pointed out that there is no such thing as a local
church that meets in two or more places.] A
church which gathers in a certain place is both local and visible. This leaves
55 more verses to consider.

Please note these words from

LOCATION IN THE IMMEDIATE
CONTEXT

In 23 other passages the
word church is located in a certain place in the immediate context. These verses
are as follows:

"The Lord added to
the (Jerusalem) church" (Acts
2:47).

"Fear came upon all
the (Jerusalem) church" (Acts
8:3).

"As for Saul, he
made havock of the (Jerusalem) church"
(Acts 8:3).

"His hands vex
certain of the (Jerusalem) church
(Acts 12:1).

"But prayer was made
without ceasing of the (Jerusalem)
church" (Acts 12:5).

"And being brought
on their way by the (Antioch) church"
(Acts 15:3).

"They were received
by the (Jerusalem) church"
(Acts 15:4).

"He. . .saluted
the (Jerusalem) church" (Acts 18:22).

"Called the elders
of the (Ephesian) church"
(Acts 20:17).

"The church that is
in their house" (Rom. 16:5).
The name of this church is uncertain, but it was local for it met in a house.

"Least esteemed in
the (Corinthian) church" (I
Cor. 6:4).

"Despise ye the
church of God" (I Cor.
11:22). Paul called the Corinthian church by this title in I Corinthians 1:1.

"He that prophesieth
edifieth the (Corinthian) church"
(I Cor. 14:4).

"The
(Corinthian) church may receive edifying" (I Cor. 14:5).

"The edifying of the
(Corinthian) church" (I
Cor. 14:12).

"In the (Corinthian)
church I had rather speak" (I Cor. 14:19).

"Let him keep
silence in the (Corinthian) church"
(I Cor. 14:28).

"For women to speak
in the (Corinthian) church"
(I Cor. 14:35).

"Let not the (Ephesian)
church be charged" (I Tim. 5:16).

"In the midst of the
(Jerusalem) church will I sing
praise unto thee" (Heb. 2:12).

"Thy charity before
the (Ephesian) church" (III
John 6).

"I wrote unto the (Ephesian)
church" (III John 9).

"Casteth them out of
the (Ephesian) church" (III
John 10).

“In
order to have a church, baptized saints must come together in one place
at the same time.”

—Eld. Milburn Cockrell—

IN CONNECTION WITH COMING
TOGETHER

We are now going on
to consider the remaining 32 passages. Three times the word church is connected
with a coming together. This precluded a universal, invisible church in the
strongest possible manner. [Ed. Note: The “coming
together” of a church also precludes the notion of a church which assembles in
more than one place.] They also demonstrate
what a church really is in the New Testament sense. These verses can mean
nothing but a local, visible body of baptized believers.

First, consider Acts
11:26 which says: "And it came to pass, that they assembled themselves
with the church, and taught much people." The reference is to the
church at Antioch. With this local, visible body of baptized believers Paul and
Barnabas assembled themselves; they assembled with the assembly. We also see
that the church is a place where people assemble to hear the Bible taught.

A church in the New
Testament sense can be gathered together in one place. In this one place the
things of God can be rehearsed. Such can never be said of some supposed
universal, invisible church.

To use the word
church of some ideal multitude who have never come together into one place is
absurd. [Ed. Note: It is also absurd to use the
word church with reference to two or more groups that have never come together
in one place but claim to be members of one and the same body.] Such
a thing cannot be a church in the Biblical sense; it is only a mythical church,
a church that is made to exist in religious minds out of theological necessity.

But in the New Testament
"the whole church" is always used to refer to a local church.

The whole church here (I
Cor 14:23) could be assembled into one place.

We have already
seen that 92 out of the 115 times the word ekklhsia
(church) occurs in the Greek New Testament it means a local body as well defined
as the legislative assembly of a Greek Free City. This makes it certain that the
local idea commonly and exclusively rules in the New Testament. Ninety-two
verses out of 115 favor my position—a very strong argument in favor of the
Landmark position. Unless there are good reasons contained in the Scriptures
themselves to make the word have a new meaning, we must always understand the
word church to refer to a local body of baptized believers.

If I can give a word a
new meaning so as to fit my creed when the common meaning makes good sense, then
I can change the entire Bible to suit my fancy and the next person can do the
same!

A person could only tell
of a personal offense to a local church of baptized believers.

These elders had a flock,
a local assembly. They were to feed this church and keep heretics out of it
(Acts 10:29). Such things could only be done in a local, visible body of
baptized believers.

Next is I Corinthians
10:32 which declares: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to
the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." The common meaning again makes
good sense. At least two times Paul referred to the Corinthian church as "the
church of God" (I Cor. 1:2; 11:22). It is only logical and proper to
believe he used the word church in the same sense here.

An objector will say,
"But this is the church in the broadest sense, which embraces the whole
number of the elect. This must be so for the passage speaks of Jews and
Gentiles." This reasoning ignores the fact that many churches had both Jews
and Gentiles in their membership. Also the offense mentioned in this verse was
to individual Jews and Gentiles. Hence it must have referred to those living in
the community where the Corinthian church was located.

This contention ignores
the fact that Jesus only personally set apostles in one church, the first church
known as the Jerusalem Church (Matt. 10:1-4; Acts 8:1).

The head of the church is
locally and visibly present in Heaven at the Father's right hand. Likewise, His
body on earth is local and visible; otherwise, you have a visible Head and an
invisible body—a monstrous thing, a spooky church!

Every local church in the
apostolic age was the body of Christ in that place. The Corinthian Church was "the
body of Christ" in the city of Corinth (I Cor. 12:27). The body in
Ephesians 1:23; 4:4,12,16; 5:30 was the church body at Ephesus. Paul called the
Ephesian Church "a building fitly framed together" (2:21), "built
together" (2:2), and "fitly joined together" (4:16).
Such togetherness can only be said of a local assembly of baptized believers. It
cannot be said of some future church not yet joined together. Even so, the body
in Colossians means the church at Colossae (1:1-2). All the body at Colossae was
"knit together" (2:18), and they had all been "buried
with him in baptism" (2:12).

According to Ephesians
4:4, "There is one body" as to kind in this gospel age. If it
is the universal, invisible body, then there is no local and particular body. On
the other hand, if it is the local body (a thing which harmonizes with the
Bible's definition of the body of Christ in I Corinthians 12:27), then there is
no such thing as a universal, invisible body. One must either give up the local
church or the big church. There are no more two kinds of bodies of Christ than
there are two kinds of faith or two kinds of God.

Only a true local church
which holds to sound doctrine can be considered the pillar and ground of the
truth.

The common sense
impression made by reading texts in which the word church occurs and a critical
examination of doubtful passages demonstrate the actual church of the New
Testament is a local society and never anything but a local society. The real
church of Christ is a local body, of a definite doctrinal constitution such as
is indispensable (sic.) to the "unity of the Spirit" of which
it is the embodiment. I believe this to be the teachings of the Holy Bible. I
must stand upon these truths even if most of the world calls me a
"misguided fanatic." (In Search of the Universal, Invisible
Church, Milburn Cockrell, 1982, Pp. 2-3, 5-8, 9, 12, 14-15, 16, 20, 21,
23).

This was such conclusive
evidence that a church, in the New Testament sense is local enough to assemble,
in fact, must assemble in one place, that I have quoted a rather large portion
of the book. Let me call your attention to two other statements in this lengthy
quote. Bro. Cockrell affirmed that it is “certain
that the local idea commonly and exclusively rules in the New Testament.”I am of the same persuasion. Old Landmarkers are
abundant in their affirmation of this truth. Since it is “certain
that the local idea commonly and exclusively rules in the New Testament,” it
seems to this Old Landmarker that the suggestion that the word “church” may
be used to refer to an organization that has some members meeting in one city,
state, or country, while other members meet in another city, state, or country
is a mis-application of the word “church”.

In the quote above, Bro.
Cockrell also wrote, “There are no more
two kinds of bodies of Christ than there are two kinds of faith or two kinds of
God.”Again,
this statement confirms my contention that a local church is a local church. It
is a body of baptized believers who assemble in one place. Otherwise, one has
more than one kind of body. Some bodies meet in only one locality. Others say
they are a church but they have a divided body that meets in more than one
locality. Clearly and obviously, this cannot be a church of the New Testament
type.

Bro. Cockrell again affirms our
contention that the New Testament kind of church is an assembly of baptized
believers who assemble in one place. He wrote,

In order to have a
church, baptized saints must come together in one place at the same time. It is
written of the church at Jerusalem that "they were all with one accord
in one place" (Acts 2:1). When Paul and Barnabas came to Antioch they "gathered
the church together" (Acts 14:27). Paul wrote to the Corinthian church:
"When ye come together in the church . . . When ,ye come together
therefore into one place" (I Cor. 11:18, 20). In such a local
institution when all the members are present in the service, they are called "the
whole church" (Rom. 16:23). The assembly of the church at Jerusalem is
called in Acts 15:22 "the whole church." (The Baptist Examiner,
Milburn Cockrell, August 20, 1977, P. 3).

Note the very first
sentence in this quotation, “In order to
have a church, baptized saints must come together in one place at the same time.”
Let us see how that harmonizes with our previously called witnesses.

WITNESS 1: James Robinson Graves

“The ecclesia of
the New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one place.”

WITNESS 2: Elton Wilson

“How local is the local
church? IT IS LOCAL ENOUGH TO ASSEMBLE.

WITNESS 3: H. Boyce Taylor

“Our first reason for
contending that the word ekklesia never means any thing but an organized and an
assembling church is that the Lord Jesus, who is the author of the Book of
Revelation, uses the word ekklesia 20 times in Revelation and every time He uses
it, He refers to a local organized and assembling church.”

In an article called, “How
To Organize a Church,” preached by Bro. Milburn Cockrell on July 10,
1977, and published in The Baptist Examiner of August 20,1977,
Bro. Cockrell wrote,

A true church is more
than a branch of another church. It is more than a religious body with
authority. It is more than a group of disciples meeting together to preach and
study the Bible. A church in the Bible sense is a congregation of baptized
believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel;
observing the ordinances of Christ, governed by His law, exercising the gifts,
rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word.

In order to have a
church, baptized saints must come together in one place at the same time. It is
written of the church at Jerusalem that "they were all with one accord
in one place" (Acts 2:1). When Paul and Barnabas came to Antioch they "gathered
the church together" (Acts 14:27). Paul wrote to the Corinthian church:
"When ye come together in the church . . . When ye come together
therefore into one place" (1Cor. 11:18, 20). In such a local
institution when all the members are present in the service, they are called "the
whole church" (Rom. 16:23). The assembly of the church at Jerusalem is
called in Acts 15:22 "the whole church."

Baptized believers must
come together in a church state and be a habitation of God through the Spirit
(Eph. 2:22). They are to be glued together in a union of spirits as if they were
but one spirit. It is written of the Jerusalem Church:

"And the
multitudeof ,them that believed were of one heart and of one soul" (Acts
4:32). "The whole body" must be "fitly joined together
and compacted" (Eph. 4:16). The hearts of each member of the body of
Christ must be knitted "together in love" (Col. 2:2), and they
are to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph.
4:13).

In an article on The
Government of the Church, Bro. Cockrell wrote,

In the congregational
form the governing power rests entirely with the people. This is sometimes
called the independent or democratic form. All ecclesiastical power is exercised
by each local church, assembled as a congregation and the decisions thus made in
the individual church are subject to no reversal by any other religious body.
The government is directed by the body acting together under theguidance
of the Holy Spirit. All enjoy an equality of rights in deciding matters, the
majority bear rule and their vote is final. (The Baptist Examiner,
August 28, 1976).

Bro. Cockrell was writing
on congregational rule as the Scriptural form of church government. Note this
statement especially. “All ecclesiastical
power is exercised by each local church, assembled as a congregation.”

All Landmark Baptists whom
I know, and many other Baptists as well, would fully agree with this statement.
The thing that one should not miss is that this authority is exercised by “each
local church, assembled as a congregation.”

But, what if the church never
assembles as a single congregation? As I have already pointed out in this study,
there are what some call a local church that does not assemble as a single
congregation. Part of the body assembles in one place, another part elsewhere.
In some cases there are several body parts located and assembling in several
different locations. Yet such churches say they believe in the local church. How
can a church be local if it never assembles in one locality?

In Scripture, a church is likened
to a human body, each member with his or her place and work. The passage is
rather lengthy, therefore I give only a part of it. 1 Corinthians 12:24-27
For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together,
having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: 25 That there
should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care
one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with
it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are
the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Paul says of the human body, “God
hath tempered the body together.” There is no way parts of a body in
Arkansas, other parts of a body in Mexico, other parts in Brazil could ever
function in any manner. It would definitely be a divided body, if one were to be
so bold as to call it a body at all. “God hath tempered the body
together . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”
Only a “together” body is really a body. If a human body must
be “tempered together” to be a true human body of the kind God created, must
not a church be a single body tempered together to be a true body of Christ?

If one were to argue that three
assemblies meeting in three different places are actually one body, one
assembly, one house of God, his argument is as flawed as were the infamous Dale
Moody’s arguments when he said all the various congregations meeting in
Louisville composed the church and body of Christ in Louisville.

No divided body parts, be
they human or ecclesiastical, can function as a body. To be a true body they
must be “tempered together.” Again, Bro. Cockrell wrote, “All
ecclesiastical power is exercised by each local church, assembled as a
congregation.” But, does a part of a church meeting
in one place with other parts meeting elsewhere, ever have authority to
exercise?

In a very good article on church
attendance, Bro. Cockrell dealt with the matter of the local nature of the
church. He wrote in that article,

THE CHURCH A CONGREGATION

The word “church”
means “an assembly”. Of the Jerusalem Church it is written: “The
disciples were assembled together” (John 20:19. In Acts 4:31 it is
said that “they were assembled together”. When the church in
Jerusalem corresponded with the church at Antioch about a doctrinal problem,
they wrote: “It seemed good unto us, being assembled . . . “ (Acts
15:25).

A church is a local
congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and
fellowship of the gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ, governed by His
laws and privileges invested in them by the Word of God. Those who do not gather
with the congregation are not a part of it. Having your name on a church roll
does not make you a church member! You must assemble with the congregation to
truly be a part of it in the New Testament sense.

In the first paragraph of this
exert from the article Bro. Cockrell emphasizes that a true New Testament type
of ecclesia, as this editor has been arguing, is an assembly that truly
assembles in a given locality. They assemble together. They assemble together in
the only way a church can assemble together; they assemble together in one
locality.

In the second paragraph
above, Bro. Cockrell makes two important statements that fully support my
contention that the members of a church must assemble with the church in its
chosen locality. First, he wrote, “Those
who do not gather with the congregation are not a part of it.”
This would certainly mitigate against the notion
that a group of baptized believers assembling in another city or country could
still be a part of the Pilgrims Hope Baptist Church which regularly assembles at
3084 Woodrow Street in Memphis, Tennessee. According to Bro. Cockrell, a group
of baptized believers who regularly assemble in a city in the Philippines could
never be a part of the church that assembles in Memphis for they never assemble
with us. Note this statement again, “Those
who do not gather with the congregation are not a part of it.”

1. Bro.
Cockrell further declared unequivocally, “You
must assemble with the congregation to truly be a part of it in the New
Testament sense.” He did not say, “You should
or ought
to assemble with the congregation to be a part of it in the New Testament
sense.” He said, “You MUST
assemble with the congregation to truly be a part of it in the New Testament
sense.” [Ed. Note: This statement means
that those folks who have their names on a church roll but assemble somewhere
other than where the church regularly assembles, are not a part of that church
even though their names are on its roll. This certainly means that those who
are in a so-called “mission” which meets somewhere else and do not
assemble with the church are not a part of their sponsoring church even if
their name is on its roll.] (The Berea
Baptist Banner, January 15, 1983, P. 7).

If this witness is correct
he completely demolishes the notion that a “church” is a true New Testament
type of ecclesia if it has two or three groups of baptized believers who
regularly assemble in two or three localities. I say, “Amen!” to this
witness. He confirms and affirms what that Old Landmarker, J. R. Graves, said
when he wrote, “The ecclesia of the
New Testament could, and was required to assemble in one place.”

CONCLUSION

I want to conclude this article
in a very simple manner. Here are statements made by this witness on the
necessity of a church assembling in one single locality.

1. “In order
to have a church, baptized saints must come together in one place at the
same time.”

2. “.
. . it points to a church which meets in a certain place.”

3. “.
. . it points to a church which meets in a certain place. (This statement
was made more than one time in different articles).

4. “. . . an
assembly of people who meet in a given locality.”

5. “A church in the
New Testament sense can be gathered together in one place.”

6. “Every local
church in the apostolic age was the body of Christ in that place.”

7. “In order to
have a church, baptized saints must come together in one place at the same
time.”

8. “All
ecclesiastical power is exercised by each local church, assembled as a
congregation.”

9. “Those who do
not gather with the congregation are not a part of it. Having your name on a
church roll does not make you a church member! You must assemble with the
congregation to truly be a part of it in the New Testament sense.”

10. “I must stand
upon these truths even if most of the world calls me a ‘misguided fanatic’.”

I too must stand upon these
truths even if most of the world calls me a misguided fanatic, an idiot, or
whatever, for I unashamedly say, “THAT’S THE KIND OF OLD LANDMARKER I
AM!!!”

On October 11, 2000, Bro. Bill Lee,
Pastor of Central Baptist Church of Grenada, Mississippi, his wife Janice and I
boarded a plane in Memphis, to begin a 40 hour trip to Chiang Mai, Thailand. In
Ft. Worth, Texas, we were joined by Bro. James Green, Pastor of Landmark Baptist
Church, Ft. Worth. From Ft. Worth we flew to Los Angeles International Airport.
We then went to the Thailand Airlines check-in and got our boarding passes for
Thai International Airlines for our flight to Bangkok, Thailand.

When we got to Bangkok we learned
that Bro. Jack had only checked his luggage to Bangkok and had to go through
customs. The three of us spent about four hours in rooms we were able to rent
while Bro. Jack was in a chair in a boarding gate area.

We were re-united the next
morning when we boarded our craft to fly on to Chiang Mai. We arrived there in
the morning and were met at the airport by Bro. Anond Phoothaptim. Needless to
say, in person and in this article I will refer to him as Bro. Anond or simply
Anond.

AN EXPLANATION

I should explain that Bro. Anond
is not a member of any church in the United States. Brethren Lee and Green went
there four years ago, baptized a group of believers with whom Bro. Green and the
church in Ft. Worth had had considerable connection through a brother sent over
by Landmark Baptist Church. It is not necessary that I relate all the details
for the purpose of this article. However, through this, the first church was
organized and Bro. Anond was a member of that assembly and remains a member to
this day. This church sent him forth to do mission work among the La Hu and Li
Su mountain tribes.

I want it clearly understood that
we did not go over there to exert any kind of authority over anyone. The
churches there are completely autonomous and none of us have any authority over
them. In the last four years some 12 or 14 churches have been started through
the mission work of Pa Sak church and their missionary, Bro. Anond. They have
been assisted through Central and Landmark as well as other churches. There or
other churches in Burma that have also been started or have been brought to
grace and church truth through the visits of Brethren Lee and Green, and the
faithful labors of Bro. Anond.

THE ANTIOCH OF THAILAND

I will come back to the trip in a
later article but for this article I simply want to describe the great work that
I believe is being done in Thailand. I wrote home to my people while there that
the Pa Sak church reminds me a great deal of the church in Antioch that sent
forth Paul and Barnabas and later Silas. Pa Sak is the oldest church in the
group and they have sent out Bro. Anond and he maintains membership in that
church. He has a rented house in Chiang Mai and owns a home in the village of Pa
Sak. The Pa Sak church does not hold an iron hand over his work as some American
churches do over their missionaries. He assembles with them quite regularly and
on other Sundays he will be with other churches, or he may be in a village
preaching the gospel where he feels there is the prospect of starting a new
work. It is not unusual for representatives of other villages to come to a
village where he is preaching and ask him, “Come to our village and preach the
gospel and the right Bible doctrine.” In fact, since we were there that has
happened a couple of times.

Bro. Anond reminded me so much of
the Apostle Paul. As Paul, he still has the care of all the churches on his
heart and spends many hours working with them. Monthly, the pastors come to his
home for a two-day visit during which they have classes two long days and
nights, with the pastors sleeping on the floors in his house in Chiang Mai.
Other times the pastors will gather at his house in Pa Sak village for this
training.

PERSECUTION

Like Paul and Barnabas, Bro.
Anond has endured persecution. In 1997 an American missionary for the Nazarenes
tried to kill him because the Landmark Baptist Church in Pa Sak was outgrowing
the Nazarene church. They were renting a building from the Nazarene’s in which
to meet and they were kicked out. They then rented a house from a Buddhist and
when some Buddhists were saved, they were kicked out there. By the way,
Buddhists are rare among the villagers. Those who are not “Christian”
usually worship evil spirits. On another occasion, he was told that if he
returned to a village that is steeped in the worship of evil spirits that he
would be killed. After about three months he was able to get back in and preach
again.

The Pa Sak church now has 50
members with 25 families represented. Two young men about 20 years of age had
recently been saved and were baptized while we were there. The church and pastor
asked that one of us baptize them and Bro. Lee did it.

With the assistance of the
Central Baptist Church, Grenada, Mississippi, and the Landmark Baptist Church,
Ft. Worth, Texas, and other churches that support the work, the Pa Sak church
was able to purchase seven acres (They had to buy that much to get it) in a
beautiful location at the base of a rock cliff. The land has fruit trees on it
and the members use it and sell the balance at roadside stands out on the
highway. They constructed a building made of bamboo with a leaf roof. They have
outgrown that building and have been breaking rocks out of the cliff and
breaking them down to size to use in concrete for a floor in a new building. The
church supports her pastor full time, saves 10% of her offerings for the new
building and helps other churches as they are able. Their new building will be
constructed of wood and masonry. The concrete for the floor will be mixed on the
site from Portland cement and sand that will be hauled in and the rocks which
are being broken with hammers by the members. The beams to support the roof will
be cut in the jungle and hewn by hand into about 12” X 12” beams for main
supports and smaller sizes where needed. The roof will be of corrugated
concrete-fiberglass sheets. Money was left this year to help on the construction
and progress is being made.

In this article I am focusing on
the first church more than others so that you will get an idea of the foundation
of this work. The pastor is a very stable and meek brother and well-respected
among the churches, it seems.

At this church, as at several
others we gave out Bibles to some in the membership who did not have them. Also,
we presented some hymnbooks. In these churches, each member is responsible for
his own hymnbook and since it may take as much or more than a day’s earnings
to buy a Bible or a hymnbook, they cannot often buy them on their own so we
purchased Bibles in Chiang Mai and gave them out in the various churches.

Dear Readers, these are not city
churches. We traveled into the jungle on roads that were sometimes mere paths
through the jungle. Our Nissan jeep-like vehicles often were in low ratio and in
first gear for miles as we traveled. We even had to take one of the vehicles
back to the rental agency and get one with a larger engine to make one trip for
one that we were using could not run the air conditioner and pull the inclines
we were making on the trips.

These La Hu and Li Su people are
very receptive to truth. One of the highlights of the trip for this editor
happened at Pang Tong Eh village. The church building there was a roof and
posts. The members and visitors sat on a plastic tarpaulin while I preached. I
had awakened that morning at 5:00 AM with a sermon on my mind that I called Why
I Am a Landmark Baptist. I got up and prepared some notes and preached
it at the Pang Tong Eh church. As I was preaching, my back was to a house and a
man was on the porch listening. Bro. Anond had spoken to him several times about
Baptist Doctrine but he had been unable to see the importance of the doctrine.
At the close of the service, this man spoke out rather loudly to get Bro.
Anond’s attention. Bro. Anond told us that he said, “Amen! I see! I see!”

A PRESSING NEED

How does Bro. Anond get to these
villages and do this work? He sometimes rents a vehicle and travels to them. On
other occasions his brother, who has a pickup takes him, but he has a job in
Chiang Mai and cannot always take him. At times Bro. Anond will ride a Thailand
Taxi for 3 or 4 hours (A Thai taxi is a pickup truck with a metal cover over the
bed but is open on the sides) then walk from the highway into the jungle to the
villages. On other occasions he rents or borrows a motorbike to make the trip.
Yet, in spite of these difficulties, he is in three or four villages some weeks
preaching the gospel and further establishing in the faith the already organized
churches.

By the time you receive this
paper, I will have written out letters to a number of churches asking for help
in purchasing a vehicle for Bro. Anond. This is one of the most pressing needs
of this work. It is not the only need but is very urgent.

Pilgrims Hope Baptist Church has
taken on the project of raising about $10,000 to buy him a jeep-like 4-wheel
drive vehicle to be used in the work. We have contributed the first $1,000 and
hope our sister churches will be willing to assist us in raising the balance.
The church has also agreed to send me back to Thailand in March, 2001, for a
two-week teaching trip and while there I will be purchasing the vehicle to give
to Bro. Anond to facilitate his travels. He is on the go constantly. I receive
e-mail from him on Monday, usually. And he is usually just getting back from a
visit to one or more of the churches and preparing to go to another. If the
church is building a building, he goes and works on that. He preaches in any
village that he can whether we have a church there or not. He takes medicine
when he has the money to purchase it. Central Baptist Church of Grenada and
Pilgrims Hope Baptist Church recently purchased a pickup truck load of blankets
that he has distributed among the church members in the various churches.

At least once each quarter, he
travels into Burma and preaches to several churches that have been started
there. He often takes his own money and buys for the people in the churches when
they have needs. Frankly, I do not see how he does what he does, especially the
way he has to travel.

This brother is a licensed
architect and engineer. We ate at one of the finest restaurants in Chiang Mai
that he designed several years ago. We saw other buildings that he designed. He
could be making several times his present income in that field but he has given
it up to be full-time in this mission work. He did not even have a refrigerator
in his home until one was purchased for him this year while we were there.

I guess what I want you to say is
that this man is not raking in the several thousands of dollars monthly that
some missionaries are, but I venture to say he is doing as much as any two
missionaries I know.

If any of you pastors who are
reading this and may not receive a letter from our church would like to assist
us in buying this vehicle, please send your offering designated for the vehicle
to the following address:

Pilgrims Hope Baptist Church

3084 Woodrow Street

Memphis, TN 38127

If you would like to assist in
the work in other ways, feel free to contact Bro. Bill Lee of Grenada, MS, Bro.
Jack Green of Ft. Worth, TX, or Bro. Wayne Camp. We will be glad to give you any
information we can and make suggestions about needs. Next issue I will try to
list some of the most pressing needs of the work.—Wayne Camp—

“I DON’T DO CHRISTMAS; I DO
BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH” DOMINATES BOUQUETS AND BATS THIS MONTH.

[Editor’s Note:
I do not know what triggered such an outpouring of support and opposition for
our online article on Christmas this year. I have decided to share some of those
with you but restrictions of space will not allow the printing of all received
responses.]

TENNESSEE: In
my studies over the past couple years I do believe xmas to be pagan. So, the
last couple years I have abandoned it completely. It has been my conviction that
many of popular doctrines such as the keeping of sunday in place of the Sabbath
leads back to catholic origins which stem from baal worship. Though we may find
ourselves in the minority in our convictions, I am thankful that God made it
clear in His word as how we should approach Him in worship. Outside of genuine
ignorance, I do believe these things matter to our Lord. God bless you in your
studies.

WWW:You seem intelligent but you go off on a wild tangent. Of
course Christmas originated with the Catholic church. Do you not know that there
was/were no Protestant church(es) in the fourth century?

And of course Christmas coincided
with a pagan holiday. It was the common practice of early Christians to co-opt
pagan holidays. People enjoy holidays. How can you ask pagans to become
Christians by taking away something that they enjoy? The most logical thing to
do is to keep the joyful part and substitute a good Christian reason for
celebrating. And that is exactly what those early Christians did. Would you
rather have them still worshipping the Sun God, than the Son God?

But you seem to be so prideful
about your own understanding of history and the Bible that you are blind to
logic and the truth. Pride, may I remind you, was the first sin.

And your first sin leads to your
second sin, hatred. Your own words about Catholicism are bubbling over with
hatred. Didn't Jesus say that one of the two great commandments was "to
love one another?"

Regardless of your disagreement
with Catholicism, you have no right as a Christian to express such hatred to
such a large group of people (to even one person, really). I'm not saying you
should agree with them, but haven't you ever heard of disagreeing without being
disagreeable?

I pray that you follow
all of the teachings of Jesus, not just the ones that suit your arguments.

TEXAS: RE:
Christmas: Thank you !! this is what our pastor, Kirby Jon Caldwell, has been
preaching for the past few weeks. it will take some time for even some of the
faithful to follow this, but, that's life. thank you. our church is Windsor
Village UMC, in Houston, Texas. ( our pastor gave a speech at the republican
national convention estolling Gov. Bush's accomplishments in Texas. don't hold
it against him !! ) may GOD bless you, and peace unto you.

For years I felt out of place by
not wanting to celebrate holidays. 1st because I worked a great deal of them, my
family only cared what they could get out of them. Then I realized that these
man made days off are mostly (social) to gain money,gifts and etc. Many say it
brings the family together. I say if you cant bring your family together at
other times of the year or give gifts of appreciation during the year without
being told what days to give then it means nothing. May God Bless You.

WWW: After
visiting your web page about Christmas and the virgin birth I had to respond. I
understand your reasons for not celebrating Christmas you said a mouth full. I
wish I had time to say all I want to say but I will not go into it now. I just
want to ask you something concerning Jesus being born from virgin Mary. With all
due respect, How were you brought into the world? Your parents conceived you I'm
pretty sure. If you have children how did they come into the world? You had to
have conceived them with your wife. So what I am trying to say is, how is it
biologically, mathematically, genetically possible for a woman to have a child
without the intervention of a man such as yourself? If Joseph wasn't Jesus'
father then that means God broke his promise that Jesus would come from the seed
of David. Joseph was a descendant of David. By Joseph being a descendant of
David and Jesus' father that fulfills God's promise to Abraham. How can God
break that promise? Then we are calling God a liar. I do want to say one more
thing. I believe Mary more than likely was a virgin before she and Joseph
conceived Jesus. That's the only way I can make sense out of Jesus being born of
a virgin. Thank you for your time.

EDITOR’S ANSWER:

Dear _______,

Mary was also a descendant of
David so the problem you suggested is non-existent. The conception of Jesus was
miraculous and nothing is too hard for God. I believe Jeremiah is making
reference to the virgin birth when he writes, "How long wilt thou go about,
O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth,
A woman shall compass a man." Jer. 31:22

Paul also alludes to the virgin
birth when he speaks of Christ being made of a woman. "But when the fulness
of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the
law."

He is the seed of the woman. Gen.
4:4 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Your concern that the doctrine of
the virgin birth makes God a liar is without foundation. I believe that your
denial of the virgin birth makes God a liar.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore will the
Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring
forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us.’

Tabia, note that it is a virgin
that shall be with child. Not a former virgin, but a virgin.

This is evident from Mary's words
when she was told of the coming birth of Christ. Luke 1:34 But Mary said
to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man?

When Joseph learned of Mary's
pregnancy with Jesus, he was minded to put her away privately and not publicly
shame her. Joseph knew he had never engaged in marital relations with Mary so he
knew it was not his child she carried.

Matthew 1:19-21 19 But Joseph,
her husband, being a righteous man, and unwilling to expose her publicly,
purposed to have put her away secretly; 20 but while he pondered on these
things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph,
son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is
begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and
thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.

Though you think it was Joseph's
biological son, Joseph did not think he (Jesus) was his biological son and the
angel of the Lord told him that the conception was not of man but through a
miraculous work of the Holy Spirit.